Pot Growth isn't Green

Stoniphi said:
Much of the cannabis grown in the US these days is done so in small indoor gardens. They are properly termed "stealth grows" or "microstealth grows" depending on how large or small the operation. These are very hard for LEO (law enforcement officers) to find due to the small electricity consumption and heat signature. Most are under 1000 Watts total lights and fans, about the same as a common pc, and are located in a vented interior closet. Cervantes assures us that a decent cannabis gardener can achieve a 2 gram per light Watt yield, though most average about 1/2 that.

Many micro growers have tried LED systems, several of which are sold to cannabis growers to cut heat and electric footprint. Thus far the results have been extremely poor both in quantity and in quality. The standard for lighting is High Intensity Discharge (HID) lighting - Metal Halide (MH) and High Pressure Sodium (HPS) bulbs. Currently available ballasts can switch from one type to another automatically and consume much less electricity than electromagnetic ballasts. Lower budget growers use compact fluorescent lighting (CF's) to good effect and yield. There is usually some "overgrow" beyond the growers needs that the gardener passes on or sells to other consumers.

Many street lights are 1000 Watt HPS bulbs, commercial buildings use 1000 W HPS and MH bulbs as well so these are available at Home Depot etc as well as hydro stores everywhere.

No matter what laws you write, no matter how much money you waste on futile attempts to enforce those laws, the very act of writing and attempting enforcement of "drug" laws escalates the value of the substance in question. In my lifetime I have seen the price of an ounce of cannabis go from $10 US (Acapulco Gold, 1967) to $750 US (Canadian hydroponic AK 47, 2011) mostly due to prohibition, which is indeed the US federal governments attempt to repeal the law of supply and demand. The potential profits in the illicit substance market insure the involvement of organized crime in same. A good perspective on this aspect of the topic can be found in "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" by CA Republican Superior Court Justice (and former federal drug war prosecutor) Grey. If you can be arsed to read it, you will be enlightened. :)

It is not possible for the government to regulate what individual persons consume for whatever purpose. It is no business of the government what the persons motivation is. The money spent on interdiction jurisdiction and incarceration of persons for "drug crimes" are assets that are not available to fight terrorism, violent crimes and serious economic crimes.

You want to "go green"? Buy cf's, install roof mounted solar and wind generators, drive an efficient auto that matches your lifestyle needs and drive it wisely. Improve your homes insulation, upgrade your heating and cooling systems, buy organic produce grown locally.

Want to get pot growers to grow greener? Support legalization of all drugs, starting with cannabis. "Drugs" - whatever those may be defined as - should be handled as a health care issue, not a legal issue. The current system simply does not work at all.

You will note the correction on your perspective, Cosmic. It is illogical to equate violent crimes against others with consuming psychotropic substances. That is a "straw man" argument and must be tossed as such. :eek: I do perceive and appreciate your emotional investment in this topic however.
Click to expand...

Shit Dude ? You want to talk about propagating too . O.K. Stoni is the Man . He hit it nail on fish whacked . Scare crows on the run way .
That is how they do it . Halogens work great but ventilation is very important . I heard of peoples putting oxygen bottles in the rooms too. To lift fresh air levels . White flys got to be managed that is for sure , so count on some type of pesticide. Lets hope it is not D.D.T.
O.K. legalize is the correct answer for any sane person
 
Ah, Drug Warriors!

Orleander said:

no. I just think its hypocritical. A few of the pot smokers friends I have are all "its natural" "its from mother earth' etc. But if its hurting mother earth, wouldn't it be selfish and hypocritical to keep growing it like this?
Click to expand...

Well, let's look at it in terms of your presumption:

I just want to know how personal use pot farmers can continue to illegally grow if it harms the planet.

would they say "well, you drive a car"
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. Unless, of course, it was illegal to drive a car. In which case you probably wouldn't have hybrids or electric vehicles to account for.

I mean, sure, it's kind of silly to see people commuting to work from Sumner to Seattle, a minimum distance of about thirty-four miles. It gets even sillier to see them sitting alone in their cars, backed up in traffic, without a carpool partner. And then to see them sitting, alone, without a carpool partner, in a GMC Denali? With a sticker on the back that says, "Support our troops"?

But if cars were regulated like marijuana, and people continued to drive anyway just like folks continue to smoke pot, you wouldn't have hybrids or electric vehicles, or even propane combustion. Rather, we would all be driving around in heavy polluting vehicles—even compared to the Denali—with technology from a bygone era. I mean, don't get me wrong; screaming through Stevens Pass in an ivy gold '67 Fairlane at the height of summer is fun. But it was a more polluting ride than, say, howling through Stevens Pass in a racing-green '77 260Z at the height of summer. And then there is whizzing through the pass in a '90 Honda CRX. Or, perhaps, cruising through the pass in a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid. And so on.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you try to burden people with guilt about the environmental consequences of their illegal behavior when those consequences stem from the fact of illegality. You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you try to burden people with guilt about the consequences of illegal behavior that they believe should not be illegal, especially when they are trying to change the legal status of their behavior.

Pot isn't green? I mean, really? This is what the War on Drugs is down to?

I mean, you have clearly misunderstood the point about marijuana being natural. As, for instance, compared to snorting something made from distilling cold medicine in diesel or kerosene and then cooking it in your oven.

As such, your lament makes you sound like just another "drug warrior" with little to no understanding of the issues you purport to address.
 
Tiassa said:
...You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you try to burden people with guilt about the environmental consequences of their illegal behavior when those consequences stem from the fact of illegality. You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you try to burden people with guilt about the consequences of illegal behavior that they believe should not be illegal, especially when they are trying to change the legal status of their behavior....
Click to expand...

the article was from National Geographic. Are they making a bigger deal of it than it is then?
 
I wouldn't say so

Orleander said:

the article was from National Geographic. Are they making a bigger deal of it than it is then?
Click to expand...

Information is information. The environmental impact of the black market is an interesting and relevant consideration. Certes, one might take issue with the idea that the article seems a bit one-sided, but, to the other, it would probably require a much longer, much deeper piece before the reporter could get actual growers and dealers to participate.

What one does with information is another consideration. You appear to have chosen to pick a certain moral or ethical bone with pot smokers. That would be your choice, just as mine is to nod sadly, shrug, and consider how much different things will be when this part of the Drug War is over and marijuana is legal.
 
Tiassa said:
Information is information. The environmental impact of the black market is an interesting and relevant consideration. Certes, one might take issue with the idea that the article seems a bit one-sided, but, to the other, it would probably require a much longer, much deeper piece before the reporter could get actual growers and dealers to participate.

What one does with information is another consideration. You appear to have chosen to pick a certain moral or ethical bone with pot smokers. That would be your choice, just as mine is to nod sadly, shrug, and consider how much different things will be when this part of the Drug War is over and marijuana is legal.
Click to expand...

tiassa, (if we take this rubbish seriously) the thing which hasnt been taken into acount is the source of the electricty, who is to say that a drug grower doesnt use solor pannels, would be a great way to actually hide energy consumption too.

Further more i wonder the energy cost vs that from a pharmacutical company (compared to output of course)

Lastly though we must reduce carbon emmssions that is not the only concideration, for instance the barrier reef is dying, its quite likly that some species of coral from the reef will soon only be found in aquariums. Now unfortunatly reef aquariums are quite energy intensive. Wheres the greater harm, using energy but saving spiecies of coral or letting them die out in the hope of saving a small amount of emissions.

Both these issues could be easierly fixed by goverment, you want pot to be greener, easy go to green fuels. Replace coal fired power stations with solar thermal and geothermal
 
There is a reason it is called weed, you know...when I found my little brother's anemic plants in some pots I'd abandoned, all I had to do was water them and they both took off and budded out.

If I'd actually used fresh soil and a lot of fertilizer I imagine I could have had some really nice wacky-tobaccy...and we just have a space between the house and the trailer outside where they got full sun.

So, yeah, it's all about it being illegal. Make it legal to grow for personal use, and this crap will all stop.
 
Asguard said:

... the thing which hasnt been taken into acount is the source of the electricty, who is to say that a drug grower doesnt use solor pannels, would be a great way to actually hide energy consumption too.
Click to expand...

I think part of that is sort of implicit in the discussion of pot's legal status. The least environmentally detrimental techniques would expose growers to law enforcement beyond any reasonable risk assessment thresholds.

Myself, though ... I have a plan in the back of my mind, but I don't know if it works. It wouldn't be a commercial-scale operation, because it would be vastly extraneous, the kind of thing I would build if I was rich and had the time and money to spare.

If it's possible, I wouldn't need to know a whole lot about physics itself in terms of the details of light. Rather, I would need some technical knowledge of photovoltaics, fiber optics, and parabolic dish receivers.

To the other, by the time I can afford to test the plan, pot will be legal, so ... there goes that one.
 
Orleander said:
I just want to know how personal use pot farmers can continue to illegally grow if it harms the planet.

would they say "well, you drive a car"
Click to expand...

The smallest stealth grow that I have encountered was a 70 Watt bulb in a 12 inch by 12 inch wide by 18 inch tall box to grow one diminutive female cannabis plant to fruition. Many stealth grows are in computer cases - they are that small.

You would tell those folks not to do that because they are causing global warming? You would then tell them not to respond by pointing out other, vastly greater sources of global warming? Why not? :shrug:

I would have to ask you why you figure that a coal burning power plant belching megatons of carbon, lead, uranium, mercury etc into the atmosphere constantly should not be considered as well. Or that single person monster truck commuter vehicle, the semi with the shot engine spewing black smoke as it rolls through my neighborhood and many, many other sources of pollution.

The bottom line here is this: if you want some pot, you either buy it from someone who has grown it or you grow it yourself. If you grow it yourself you have to hide that or take the chance that someone will steal ("rip") it or that LEO will bust you. The easiest way to grow small quantities of cannabis, considering that it is still illegal in many places, is to grow it indoors. That is where you object citing "global warming" concerns.

OK, what about those Canadian hydroponic cucumbers I buy every week at the grocery store? The tomatoes and strawberries? Lettuce? Those are all grown indoors with grow lights...do you want to ban them too? Shame on you Aunt Mid???

You are making such a stretch here that your bias is obvious. I suspect that your status as a parent of a young child has a lot to do with your stance on this issue, but you are off in the wrong direction again. IMHO, the best way to handle this issue with your daughter is to openly discuss it in an 'as-needed' matter-of-fact honest and straightforward manner, just like the gay sex issue.

:)

Ah brother Me - Ki, you gotta think organic to deal with those problems. Strains of baccilis thuringensis have been developed to kill off those pests without the use of pesticides. Predator mites are commercially available online and those - as well as lady bird beetles and the like are routinely bought, sold and shipped all over the country every day now. In an indoor grow, one area of utmost importance is keeping it clean. That means that the grower works in their indoor garden before their outdoor garden, not vice versa, to prevent bringing white flies, spider mites and mold gnats into the grow area.

Many stealth growers employ sealed systems with intake and exhaust filters to prevent insects from getting into the grow and to prevent smells from getting out of the grow. If the grow area is kept clean, intake air is filtered, the grower only works on the grow while he/she is clean and pets are not allowed in the area, very rarely will a pest get into it. If one does there are organic solutions available to get rid of same without poisons to contaminate the crop.

Once again, this time with great feeling: It is Prohibition that is the problem, not the thing that has been prohibited or the people who use it. Prohibition simply does not work as intended and costs far more than it is worth. It hides real problems and keeps at-risk persons from seeking medical/professional assistance. It corrupts LEO (67% of LEO who come into contact with the illicit substance trade become directly involved in it. This from the book I cited above). It is so cost - ineffective that it drags our entire society down and complicates everything that we do.
 
Tiassa said:
If it's possible, I wouldn't need to know a whole lot about physics itself in terms of the details of light. Rather, I would need some technical knowledge of photovoltaics, fiber optics, and parabolic dish receivers.
Click to expand...

Not sure quite what you have in mind, but I wonder if these things would be of use in this situations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_tube

Note that they aren't terribly expensive - much less expensive than regular skylights, for example.
 
quadraphonics said:
Right - but read through the info carefully. The company in question had to move out of North Carolina because it is illegal to manufacture stills there. Also note that he "strongly suggests" that potential buyers obtain a "fuel alcohol producer" permit before purchasing his products. This type of permit being, apparently, easier to obtain, even though it does not actually allow you to produce liquor for human consumption.

Of course, with all of his recipes and so on, he's pretty much begging for trouble eventually...

Much like medical marijuana, home distillation is a grey-market area, with enforcement subject to priorities and discretion of various authorities. It is by no means actually "legal."
Click to expand...
In Ohio they want you to have the still built and in place because an inspection is required to get the small fuel producers permit..Naturally you would start with something small (presumably beverage size). Reason being that if you're turned down your investment wasn't as great..Or so my thinking goes.
 
right on Stoni . Wow we can set up our very own growing oporation right on S.F. if we wanted too . Bug free too. Just Joking Varda
 
Stoniphi said:
...You are making such a stretch here that your bias is obvious. I suspect that your status as a parent of a young child has a lot to do with your stance on this issue, but you are off in the wrong direction again. IMHO, the best way to handle this issue with your daughter is to openly discuss it in an 'as-needed' matter-of-fact honest and straightforward manner, just like the gay sex issue...
Click to expand...

wow. that is one heck of an assumption :bugeye:

I don't grow pot. I was going by the National Geographic article. If people want a natural high, I thought they would care about the planet and grow it naturally. I'm uniformed, not biased and hostile.
 
Orleander said:
If you really care about the planet, you shouldn't smoke weed. :m:

Marijuana: High on Megawatts

...When it comes to wasting megawatts, marijuana is the greatest offender. According to a 2011 study of indoor pot-growing operations, growers in the United States use about $5 billion worth of electricity to power lightbulbs, ventilation fans, dehumidifiers, and other appliances to mimic outdoor growing conditions. That's the output of seven large electrical power plants, or one percent of national electricity consumption, wrote Evan Mills, a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who performed the study independently. Smoking a single joint, Mills wrote, is worth two pounds of carbon dioxide emissions....
Click to expand...

Hmmmm......how does this compare to the emissions for one cigarette or one cup of coffee?

One of the comments in response to the article follows, for those who may have missed the start of this thread.....

lucian_badea

8:57 AM on August 30, 2011

if that stupid mafia that we call government, legalize plants that grow on earth since before the humans, than nobody will use the artificial energy to grow them, and nobody will harm the nature balance destroying plants species just becouse they contain some substances that help humans to feel better
Click to expand...

Virtually ALL activities by our species engage in the manipulation of nature, and by dint of our sheer numbers, we have impact upon our habitat, in many forms.

A cost/benefit analysis of any of our activities, from food sourcing, to sanitation, to disposing of the bodies of the deceased, is going to 'reveal' the fact that human activity, in general, isn't green.

The true cost of any product or activity goes far beyond the dollar analysis that we assign to it.

The intrinsic value of nature is what is at stake, and there are those that deny that such value even exists.

That, of course, is the nature of some humans, fortunately not all.....

You are likely correct in suggesting that most who engage in the use of 'pot herbs' may not have considered the question of 'green' from such an analytical perspective. :D
 
Orleander said:
wow. that is one heck of an assumption :bugeye:

I don't grow pot. I was going by the National Geographic article. If people want a natural high, I thought they would care about the planet and grow it naturally. I'm uniformed, not biased and hostile.
Click to expand...

I did not suggest that you "grow pot".

My inference is based on readily observable statements that you have made. It is not a value judgement on either your' inferred sentiments or the statements that bring those.

Perhaps it is carry - over from a biased NG source article. :shrug:

Either way, it is sort - of a red herring to consider the 'be green' sentiment to be of greater social or environmental importance than destroying peoples lives and spending enormous amounts of money to try and regulate what individual persons consume in the privacy of their homes.

To cite just one example (from the previously cited source):

A young woman was pulled over while on her way to work in LA. The cop went on what we term a "fishing expedition" in her car and personal effects by using a common LEO verbal trick to get her to give up her constitutional rights against undue search/seizure without "probable cause". He found 2 joints in her purse and arrested her.

She served 3 years in jail at a cost of $65,000/year to taxpayers. She lost her job and obtained a criminal record making it much harder for her to get a job when she got out. The court took away custody of her 3 children and put them in foster care at a cost of $25,000/year/child = $75,000/year. The LA police "confiscated" all of her meager worldly possessions as "drug forfeiture".

When she got out she had no choice but to go on public assistance as no-one would hire an ex - con, her children had spent 3 years without their birth mother and she owned nothing, had no place to live and had lost custody of her kids. LEO had taken a productive American citizen taxpayer and single parent raising her children on her own and turned her into an unemployed person on public welfare rolls for a rough cost of $420,000 to the taxpayers of California.

Question: Between the carbon footprint of the production of approximately 2 grams of plant matter and the carbon footprint cost of arresting, trial, custody loss of children, foster care, incarceration and loss of a productive taxpayer - which carbon footprint is the greater?

Question: if we are going to spend that money and carbon to regulate an individuals' cannabis consumption "for the greater good", are we going to do that for sugar, fat, chemical additives/preservatives, unneeded prescriptions and the like?

It is estimated based on current statistical trends in US prohibited substance arrest/incarceration rates that by the year 2020 fully 1/2 of all American citizens will be in jail for "drug crimes" and the other 1/2 will be there guarding them. There will be no-one working to pay the taxes to support this idiocy. It is not possible for us to continue in this manner. We simply cannot afford it. We will either change the way we do things or we will go broke and bankrupt.

Choose. :)
 
misleading information

no woman was jailed four years for possession of two joints.
What alot of crap.
 
Last edited:
pots horrible shit anyway.
what was once reasonably enjoyable to smoke is no longer the same plant... it's been genetically engineered by somebody into an acrid pungeant vile thing- all chemical feeds ewww discusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top